In Itxa/6885/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 16, Mumbai v. Ranjanben H. Doshi, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: TATED, JJ.DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6885 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-XVI, Mumbai..Appellant.
V/s.
Ranjanben H. Doshi
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ.DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this appeal.
2.It is not disputed that the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ITAT deleting the quantum addition being Income Tax Appeal No.6886 of 2010 has been dismissed by us today i.e. 14[th ]September, 2011. Once the quantum addition is deleted, sustaining the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not arise. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. TATED, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue